That is a good question, and lies at the heart of a lot of ATM motivation. The ATMer frequently wants what they would describe as a "mechanism". Unfortunately their views of what this can be is determined by their macroscopic world of levers, billiard balls, magnets, and fluids, etc. It is hubristic in the extreme to think that the underlying "mechanism" of physics must conform to this kind of model. We must deal with the universe as it is, not as we would like it to be.

Not sure that our macroworld sensorial impression of reality applies to the micoworld.
In that case, how do explain how the nucleus stays together? The strong interaction is the strongest force there is. 10³⁸ times that of gravity.
Where did you demonstrate (physically, not verbally) that a moving charge causes gravity? What equations do you have to back it up? What experiments have been conducted to confirm this?
General Relativity tells us that mass causes spacetime to warp. It does not consider gravity a force, just a geometric distortion of spacetime.

QM and M-theory say it is the graviton, not the Higgs boson. The Higgs boson is the particle which imparts mass to elementary paticles. If they fail, it does not mean you are right. Just that we need to find a better theory.

__________________
______________________________________________
“He who asks a question is a fool for five minutes; he who does not ask a question remains a fool forever”
Chinese proverb
"All you need in this life is ignorance and confidence - and then success is sure." - Mark Twain.

still watching...

Funny how many questions would be answered if they just clicked on the links that were so graciously seperated on the first page. No problems here with 'scrolly boxes'.

The answers are:
As above so below
As outside so within

etc..

modern physics has no time for recursive thought. no idea of what unity may look like.

Albert Einstein once said “The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results”.

good luck, they've had decades to hammer away their 'ideas'

Celestial Mechanic
Nice ID name by the way.

Because although they are related they are different manifestations of spatial distortion. The more important question is why would you think that they should not be distinguished and understood better?

Gzhcpu
Fortis
I say:
Please forgive my ignorance here but I am not sure what ATM stands for.

And to Celestial Mechanic

This reply for all 3 people macroscopic vs microscopic world. It is my belief that the microscopic world is driven by a set of rules and forces that are cause and effect driven not driven by quantum mechanics probabilities. Real forces make things happen in the microscopic realm as well as the macroscopic. Is not the world of the macroscopic made up entirely of the microscopic? How can the laws be different? For instance the laws of quantum mechanics actually do not occur in the macroscopic world. If I place a cue ball on a pool table and watch it for an eternity we all know that ball will not move unless acted upon by some external force but quantum mechanics says that theoretically that cue ball can suddenly move across the table by itself. The laws of one world must be the same for both worlds. Oh, by the way the concept of expecting the laws of the macroscopic to be the same as the laws of the microscopic world is not so much a matter of arrogance as it is common sense.

Before I go any further if there is any body else out there that might want to chime in on my side. Feel free as I am getting triple teamed here and could use some help. Surely there must be someone out there that believes in determinism. I feel like the Last Templar.

gzhcpu
I say:
The strong interaction in Super Relativity is considered a special version of the coulomb force. In this case it is strong because the quarks electromagnetic lines of force are entangled and are not separate as in other particle types.


gzhcpu
Uhh, did you not read the Origin of Gravity paper. It is clearly stated in there with the math so I am not going to repeat it here.

Gzhpcu
I say:

Ok this is going to sound arrogant so don’t get mad.
SR Theory says that it is both a warping of space and a force. If in fact General Relativity does indeed say it is not a force. I don’t agree with that. Sorry, I hope I did not offend anybody.

Celestial Mechanic
I say:
For the last 3 pages of this thread I have answered what force and space are. If you want more information more detail you will have to go to my cheesy website and read some more.


Celestial Mechanic
You say:

Why do you insist on distinguishing magnetic and electric fields? We've understood their mutual dependence for over a century now.

Why do you insist on not distinguishing them?

Celestial Mechanic
I say:
Already answered that above in this post.

Celestial Mechanic
I say:
Hey, I already apologized for the website and said that I was fixing it. You should try to be nicer. Just because we do not agree you don’t have to be a wise guy. I believe that I already answered the question above at least once maybe twice. If you want more info you will have to read at the site or I can send you article in text form. Do you use Microsoft Word?

Celestial Mechanic
I say:
Finally.. At last… Yes, They failed because they did not have the complete picture. They did not have enough of the puzzle pieces. If they were alive today and new about quarks and more about the photon, neutron, proton and electron I am sure they would have succeeded.

Gzhpcu
I say:
So far they have found neither so I would say they better plan on finding a better theory.

Cooop

Thank you for the excellent comment. You hit the nail on the head. I appreciate that.

mmfiore,

Your thread is interesting, but I have a question. I agree with your assertation that the forces are produced by a medium like an ether. I have a similar ATM (against the mainstream) thread going with a few days left. You say that the forces are not produced by a particle field, but that all parts of space must be filled by the ether. But in order to create force, wouldn't the ether have to be fluid and moveable? I mean, if it were always fixed, filling all parts of space equally at all times, then nothing would change. If it is fluid-like, however, then it has moving parts, and those parts can be considered particles in discrete quantities in order to allow them to move, and so then the ether could be thought about in the same way as a particle field, with the same equations applied to it, could it not?

__________________
Let's put together the pieces of The Grand Puzzle . (website - now revised)

"Let's define another operator, Sz, which we won't pay any attention to."
"This transformation will automatically make zero equal zero."
"It may be true that zero equals zero -- and that is certainly an equality -- but I don't want to go into the details at this time."

The laws are different. Please explain the results of the two slit experiment and quantum tunneling in your model, as I have previously asked you to. Resorting to "common sense" as an argument is not valid.

As to your question, what is ATM, that is the name of this subforum, "Against the mainstream".

I did read the paper. I read it and found no satisfactory explanation. The motion and spin of quarks is the source of gravity is what you are essentially saying. So, how have you "defined" gravity? What is its meaning? Tiny movements of tiny particles cause massive gravitational effects?


No offense taken, because I don't agree with your SR theory, I prefer to agree with Einstein...

__________________
______________________________________________
“He who asks a question is a fool for five minutes; he who does not ask a question remains a fool forever”
Chinese proverb
"All you need in this life is ignorance and confidence - and then success is sure." - Mark Twain.

mmfiore, I think that you may have missed my post.
It is always a bit of a red flag when someone uses values that are only good to 1 significant figure, to obtain results that they claim match observation to better than 8 significant figures. It is usually an indicator of circular reasoning. I believ that this may be happening in your predcition of the masses of the proton and neutron using a low precision mass for the up and down quarks.

Can you comment on this?

Hello Everyone,

I am again rolling all my comments into one post so keep an eye out for your name so you know when I am responding to your comments.

The first thing I need to know is does this thread run out and get deleted after a certain amount of time. If so I would like to know when that happens as I don’t want to loose this conversation. I would like to continue examining the comments and thinking about them.
Let me know what the rules are on this. Thanks…

To Grav

You bring up an interesting question about the medium. Oh thanks for explaining what ATM stands for. The medium is I believe a solid (continuous) structure and only moves by stretching and transforming. Stretching I think everyone here will understand. It’s the transforming part that will need explaining. Now remember this is a philosophical construct so I am explaining the physical model according to SR Theory from this perspective. So what I am saying is this is the way I think it is.

Space can be deformed mechanically by being stretched or inverted. Spatial inversion is the (electrostatic field and charge) this is the twisted configuration. Stretching happens as the Universe expands and also with Magnetic fields as the space turns. Collapsing is the physical expression of gravity and is an inward deformation.

Transformation is another unique idea from SR Theory. It says that particles are configurations of space and what that means is that when a particle occupies a region of space that region of space transforms from being unconfigured or essentially flat into the shape or configuration of the particle that is occupying it. The maximum speed at which this transformation can happen is the speed of light. That is an important point as that exposes the secret of why light travels at the speed it does. Space cannot react any faster to transform into the photon as the photon travels. There is only one exception to this rule and the secret to that was exposed by the EPR experiment. This eventually led to the most important discovery of Super Relativity which is the Slip Wave Spatial Bias Drive. That is another topic altogether. Oh for all the skeptical folks out there yes it is unproven but I also propose an experiment to prove that idea correct as well.

All of this may be difficult for some people to visualize. Explaining it another way… Space is the only thing there really is. In this universe, particles are spatial distortions of that material and cannot be destroyed. They are locked into the finite and unbounded system. Because particles are configurations of space and they have charge which is twisted inverted space, perpetual movement through space is achieved as this twisted configuration creates a pressure against that which is unconfigured flat space. Twisting in one direction can be said to represent clockwise turning of space which can be represented as ordinary matter and twisting counterclockwise represents anti-matter. So you can see all of the elemental properties of matter and energy can be accomplished by a few simple spatial deformation patterns.

Everything is connected and everything is relative to the ether. The idea that everything is relative to each other is an imperfect limited concept. Oh I know that is going to upset somebody. Remember these are set of concepts that were worked on for over 20 years so the model must be consistent in that the explanation for any phenomena will always return to the source, which is the ether, space or whatever you want to call it. This should answer the question of the ether.

To gzhpcu

I agree the two slit experiment is important evidence and helps to describe the nature of matter and energy. I am going to write an entire chapter on that experiment. I have the details worked out in my mind but I still need to do some more research before I start. I think that my explanation will be similar to what quantum mechanics will say but I have not researched yet. Basically all I will say right now is written below and I’ll let you ponder it for awhile.

The solution to the double slit experiment is rather simple in my opinion. The particle goes through both holes when they exist (are open) and only one hole when there is only one slit open. The photon interferes with itself when two slits exist. The strength of the interference depends on the size of the slits and how far they are separated from each other. The further the slits are apart the less the banding and therefore the less the interference. It also has to do with the wavelength of the particle being used. Once again the solution is rather simple when using SR Theory. That is of course assuming that I am correct. Remember I am a philosopher not a mathematician.

To gzhpcu
I say:
First off, no not massive gravitational effects. I don't where that came from.

I am sorry that you found no satisfactory explanation. This tells me one of 2 things:
1. That you don’t understand what I am saying and perhaps that is my fault as I did not make it clear enough.
2. Because of your educational background and bias you don’t want to get it. Let me talk directly to you. Be sure of one thing, I may or may not be correct in my thinking about a lot of things but of this idea on gravity I am sure I am correct whether people like you can believe and accept it or not. I am confident that in time that paper will be proven correct. Please re-read it. The answer is so simple if it were a snake it would bite you in the face. Unbalanced charge particles are moving at high speed in an accelerated fashion therefore by the Lorentz transformations a gravitation field is emitted by this process. A spatial contraction occurs because of their motion. My God I even drew pictures of it. Now it is up to you whether you want to accept that or not.

No, you agree with Quantum Mechanics and the status quo. I agree with Einstein.


Fortis
I say:
Yes I get your point and I fully agree. I can’t help that though as the quark values for the masses are what they are. That is the best data I had available. The experiment can be repeated with values for the quark masses as accurate as you like and the bottom line result will be the same. The only thing that will change is the value of the quarks speeds will shift a little. This is absolutely no problem though. If you have higher resolution values for the quark masses they can be used in the equations and the solution will still emerge.

Also as a general note of interest I noticed that some members are Juniors and some members are Senior level what qualifies one as a senior member? Does it have to do with amount of comments or how long you have been a member? Just curious.

Threads started in the ATM Forum will be locked automatically after 30 days, but the thread will remain, noting gets deleted.

__________________
________________________________________
Your theory is crazy, but it's not crazy enough to be true. -- Niels Bohr --

Ipsa scientia potestas est. ~ Knowledge itself is power.---- Bacon
--------
Ad eundum quo nemo ante iit.


Hint: this is at heart a scientific forum, and underneath the fooling around there are some diamond-hard minds hanging about, ready to tear you to shreads. -- mike alexander --

What you describe is basically wave mechanics. However, there is more to it than just that. When you observe one of the two slits to determine which slit the particle went through, it behaves like a particle and the wave interference pattern disappears, replaced by a particle interference particle. QM posits a probability cloud for the particle, formulated by the Schrödinger wave equation. On observation, it collapses and one of the positional variants is chosen, and the location of the particle is then known. How do you explain this in your theory?

I do not see how you bring the Lorentz transformation into this question. The Lorentz transformations describe how a traveling object appears in respect to an inertial reference frame. For example: If you leave earth on a spaceship and travel close to the speed of light, it will appear to me left behind on earth, that you have shortened, your clock has practically stopped and you are massive. But to you, you haven't. Therefore you can not be the origin of gravity and warping of space.

__________________
______________________________________________
“He who asks a question is a fool for five minutes; he who does not ask a question remains a fool forever”
Chinese proverb
"All you need in this life is ignorance and confidence - and then success is sure." - Mark Twain.

Awesome. So obviously when they come into contact space returns to its flat unconfigured state, with whatever energy was involved being expelled.

I don't quite understand the inversion transformation you speak of though. What is it that this represents? I think I can see how gravity is a scalar positive expansion or contraction in all directions, is the inversion what happens when this goes into the negative direction? What physical force does this represent?

Thanks mmfiore. I have a few more questions. How does space stretch and deform without quantized spacing within that allows it to do so? How does the twisted ether of particles remain that way without untwisting? How do they move through space? Also, what coooop asked about.

I have read the section of your paper, Origin of Gravity, and I have the same concerns as gzhpcu. I do not see any correlation whatsoever between the hypothetical speeds of quarks you found and a mechanism for gravity.

By the way, I ran through your numbers. I see that you said you a philosopher, not a mathematician. You did a good job finding the relative speeds of quarks in that case, but you didn't need a program for that. Here is how they can be found with just algebra for the numbers you used.

m_up = .003 GeV / c^2 = 5.347985184*10^-30 kg
m_down = .006 GeV / c^2 = 1.069597037*10^-29 kg

m_proton = 2 m_up' + m_down' = 1.6726*10^-27 kg
m_neutron = m_up' + 2 m_down' = 1.6749*10^-27 kg

( ' denotes relativistic mass)

2 M_proton - m_neutron = 2 (2 m_up' + m_down') - (m_up' + 2 m_down')
= 3 m_up' = 2 (1.6726*10^-27 kg) - (1.6749*10^-27 kg)

m_up' = 5.567666666*10^-28 kg

m_down' = m_proton - 2 m_up = 5.590666666*10^-28 kg

*****

m' = m / sqrt[1 - (v / c)^2]

sqrt[1 - (v / c)^2] = m / m'

1 - (v / c)^2 = (m / m')^2

1 - (m / m')^2 = (v / c)^2

v / c = sqrt[1 - (m / m')^2]

v = c sqrt[1 - (m / m')^2]

v_up = c sqrt[1 - (m_up / m_up')^2]
= c sqrt[1 - ((5.347985184*10^-30 kg) / (5.567666666*10^-28 kg))^2]
= .999953866 c = 299778627.6 mps

v_down = c sqrt[1 - (m_down / m_down')^2]
= c sqrt[1 - ((1.069597037*10^-29 kg) / (5.590666666*10^-28 kg))^2]
= .999816969 c = 299737586.9 mps

I have made these results precise for the values of the masses given, but the speeds themselves are not, because the mass of the quark is not precise, found only to one digit of accuracy, as Fortis mentioned. Less than that even, they are given as a range of possible values for the mass of quarks, which can be found on Wiki, so one can only find upper and lower possible relative speeds in accordance with the upper and lower hypothetical mass ranges of the quarks. I have tried something like this before with the particle masses and atoms. However, I still don't see how knowing these speeds translates into gravity.

I have seen the picture you mention to gzhpcu and find that it doesn't explain much. I have also skimmed through some of the rest of the sections and found nothing but text. Text is good for explaining and pictures are handy for visualization and all, but when it comes to the realm of the scientific, it is really equations that are worth a thousand words.

__________________
Let's put together the pieces of The Grand Puzzle . (website - now revised)

"Let's define another operator, Sz, which we won't pay any attention to."
"This transformation will automatically make zero equal zero."
"It may be true that zero equals zero -- and that is certainly an equality -- but I don't want to go into the details at this time."

Hello Gzhpcu,

This is a big topic and since I have not finished my research on it, particularly the QM side I will not get into it to deeply now. I will keep it at a conceptual level.
I will for the sake of clarity explain my technique of analysis to you. I am going to ask that people reading to restrain from any wise guy comments because this may seem a bit odd to some people. I use this technique as I learned it by reading about Einstein and also from friends I know from Europe who also used a similar technique to learn how to program. When you don’t have money or equipment you learn to use your brain more, as some of my friends who learned how to program without computers have done. They would write the programs and execute them in their heads. They did it this way because the school did not have computers. This extreme way of learning has made them the best damned programmers that I have ever seen.
Since I do not have my own lab and test equipment I go online and get books and read about the topic I want to understand. In this case the double slit experiment. After I do that I use the same technique that Einstein and my programmer friends used which is the mind experiment and I visualize the experiment. Since at one time many years ago I was an artist this is very easy for me to do as I tend understand things better when I see things graphically. I just replay the experiment in my mind and run it over and over trying different things each time. I use the knowledge from the books and papers I read to constrain the imaging. This is a poor man’s lab. I then record my observations and try to make sense out of it.
In the case of the doubleslit experiment I see the photon approaching the slits but it is not just a point I see lines of electromagnetic force extending from a central core. The core being where the matter antimatter parts are coupled together. The lines stretch out and complete the inversion with the photon being composed of two parts one matter and one anti-matter two oppositely charged components which then give the photon a net charge of zero. This configuration also forces the photon to travel in a straight line. This field I see is what I call the Effective Field Size or EFS. The EFS directly corresponds to the photons wavelength. If the photon has a wavelength of one centimeter then the EFS is of course one centimeter so if the slits are separated half a centimeter then you can see why I say that the photon goes through both holes and interferes with itself. It encounters the doubleslit as a single structure and the field of the photon is engaging both slits. The photon is deflect by this complex geometrical shape. When there is only one slit the deflection pattern is a simpler splotch pattern. In my mind when I move the slits apart the interference pattern begins to fade as the second whole has less and less effect on the photon. This is my preliminary work. It is still in progress so please keep that in mind.
As for the QM technique I have no problem with that at all. It is a good approximation technique. Obviously it works so well because of the Schrodinger Wave equation. As for the probability cloud, (non-existant mathematical abstraction). I love that term it is cool (probability cloud). But in reality that to me it is nothing more than a fancy way of saying because we are using probabilities we have no earthly idea where the photon really is and we are going to cover ourselves mathematically speaking until we make our observation. Then the probability wave collapses another non-existant mathematical abstraction and we have our answer. It’s a great thing. I am fine with it. As a way and a tool to explain particle motion and interaction QM is fantastic. I know it is a mathematical shortcut to get a good result but it does not represent physical reality. There is no such thing in physical reality as a probability cloud. Have you ever seen one? Once again QM is great for predicting particle interactions because they are quantized objects. I do not believe that quantized objects, (particles) are at the core of our reality. Tensor fields is where the real action is at. Once again Einstein was right.

Hey, no one ever answered my question about what makes a person a senior member.

Number of posts. It's not a very high number.

__________________
Reality moves at the speed of light.
If the text of this post is blue, it's a "Moderator comment".
[ The RULES of the Forum ] [ Forum FAQs ] [ Conspiracy Theory advice ] [ Alternate Theory Advice ]
To report a post (even this one) to the moderation team - use the /!\ icon at the top-right of the post.

Hi Grav,


That is a wonderful question. You know I am going to miss this when my 30 days are up. The charges can't unwind because they are inside a finite but unbounded system there is no edge or ending for them to unwind. Why don't particles fade away in the world of quantum Mechanics?

To Cooop,

No the particles do not unwind and cancel out that would be Catastrophic. When opposite charges meet they do not destroy or unravel they are attracted and in most cases couple as when for example and electron and positron collide one of the most common results is a temporary photon is created. Then the particles revert back. In this brief moment of this particular particle interaction my point and theory are nicely verified. How so you ask? Well mankind went through all of the trouble to smack the positron(anti-matter) and electron(matter) together. Then look what popped out. Two photons suddenly appear. Somehow two particles with mass and angular momentum convert into two photons with no mass traveling in a straight line. That matches the Super Relativity description of what should happen perfectly. Remember I said that a photon is composed of half matter an half antimatter. And lo and behold when you force matter and anti-matter particles together you get a photon. Looks like verification of what I have been saying.
Thanks Cooop for asking that question.

Grav,

Space does not have quatized spacing that I know of because it is continuos. Continuous objects do not have this.

Already answered the moving through space question earlier in the thread.

You rascal you. You thought you had me those questions. I have to admit they are getting tougher and tougher but that is why I am here. you are helping me shore things up by constant challenges.

Hey Grav,
You are right I am a bit one dimensional when it comes to math. But I am real good with ideas. So perhaps you would like to know about an even better way to solve for mass although you don't see that in what I've done so far. That is what was demonstrated there. I am not sure why you don't get it but maybe a little more discussion we could clear that up.

I will make you a deal, if you are interested but first I need to know if you are a physicist or mathematician.

Good night all.

If they cannot unwind, then how do they wind?

I have an answer to that according to my own hypothesis, but it's in my ATM thread. I'm not how QM officially views it.

I thought the particles remain annihilated and only photons exist thereon. Are you thinking about virtual particles?

What does a photon with half matter and half anti-matter look like under your hypothesis? How does it twist?

Continuity of objects is only an illusion on the macroscale. They are made up of micro-constituents that allow them to bend and stretch. Solids are composed of atoms that allow malleability. Liquids are fluid and gases fill a volume evenly. All appear to be continuous on the macroscale. Which would you say the ether under your hypothesis is the most similar to - a solid, liquid, or gas?

Just getting warmed up. For instance... What is the density of the flat ether? If particles twist it, does the density increase? If it is stretched, does the density decrease? What is the lowest density that can be achieved by stretching? Can it be stretched so much that it rips?

Yes, I would like to see that. All that last endevour did was to find the hypothetical relative speeds of quarks. If I then used those speeds to find the masses of the proton and neutron, I would just regain the same masses I started out with. That is because it is the masses of the proton and neutron that were used to find the speeds to begin with. Yours turned out just slightly different because you didn't use the precise math, but a somewhat trial and error method to find the intersection, but still came rather close to the same masses as you started out with nonetheless.

I am a BAUTian and proud of it. Isn't that all that matters? Actually, I don't have a background in either. I am self learned but with much help from the good people here on BAUT.

__________________
Let's put together the pieces of The Grand Puzzle . (website - now revised)

"Let's define another operator, Sz, which we won't pay any attention to."
"This transformation will automatically make zero equal zero."
"It may be true that zero equals zero -- and that is certainly an equality -- but I don't want to go into the details at this time."

Matter and antimatter annihilate each other. Why does this not happen in your model of the photon?
Be aware that you are only partially describing the double slit experiment. When one attempts to determine which slit the particle (photon, electron, etc) goes through, the interference pattern then changes: it become the classical particle impact pattern and the wave interference pattern disappears. How do you explain this?

And how do you explain quantum tunneling with your model?

__________________
______________________________________________
“He who asks a question is a fool for five minutes; he who does not ask a question remains a fool forever”
Chinese proverb
"All you need in this life is ignorance and confidence - and then success is sure." - Mark Twain.

You stated:

Hence you do not agree with Einstein, whose GR theory that gravity is not a force.

__________________
______________________________________________
“He who asks a question is a fool for five minutes; he who does not ask a question remains a fool forever”
Chinese proverb
"All you need in this life is ignorance and confidence - and then success is sure." - Mark Twain.

__________________

Any comments in glorious red are to be considered in ModeratorMode.


善數, 不用籌策 (shàn shù, bù yòng chóu cè)
He who is good at counting, uses no counting tools
“A good scientist has freed himself of concepts and keeps his mind open to what is”
道德經, 二十七 (dào dé jīng, 27)

Since the photon is composed of two oppositely charged particles, why is observed as having no rest mass and no electric dipole moment?

The neutron also has zero net charge, but we can observe a non-zero (electric) quadrupole moment.

__________________
papageno


"Why waste time learning, when ignorance is instantaneous?" - Hobbes (Calvin and Hobbes)

"It's all about context!" - Vince Noir (The Mighty Boosh)

"I've never heard of such a brutal and shocking injustice that I cared so little about!" - Zapp Brannigan (Futurama)

"...because the logic of the lines traced from reality is as poor of aesthetic value as it is strict in consistency. " - Paolo Bozzi (Naive Physics - free translation)

__________________
Forming opinions as we speak

Thank you for the helpful comments. I appologize for the improper communication. You are correct as I would like to possibly exchange information privately. I was unaware of a method for initiating that type of communication through the website.

Also, I very much appreciate what the other members are doing with their questions I am finding it to be very helpful. This is a great system and website. Yes, at times it does feel like being attacked but everyone here has been very professional and for the most part polite. I greatly appreciate that.

I read somewhere than,

'When the Unified Field Theory is finally released to the public, it will be recognized quite easily; for it will have explained why the proton is exactly 1836 times the gravitational mass of an electron,... why there is no neutral mu-meson of mass 200,... why (h) is a constant... and why hc/e2 is always equal to (137)...`

To papageno

The second part of the question is the first argument that I have not considered all these other questions are things that I have already debated as I have already asked all of the questions to myself over the years. I believe the possible explanation for lack of a dipole moment lies in the idea I have about how the photon is constructed. Remember I said that the photon is constructed with a particle half and an anti-particle half. They don't exhibit the dipole effect because they are coupled back to back. What does that mean physically? I will demonstrate. Draw on a piece of paper a half circle going clockwise. Be sure to put an arrowhead on the end of the circle so you can see the direction of motion. Then across from the clockwise circle draw a second half circle going counterclockwise. Also put the arrow head pointing the other way. Now fold the paper in half and hold it front of a strong light. With them connected back to back the rotation is now in the same direction. Say goodbye to the dipole moment. This construction is also important because if there poles were connected the other way the photon would not move at all. Half of the photon would be pulled in one direction and the other half in the other direction. Good point thank you for bringing that up.

It has no rest mass as is stated in my paper because it is composed of two equal but opposite charges which when constructed as I describe move forward in a straight line at a constant velocity. By the Theory of Super Relativity any particle that is a fundamental particle such as the photon and composed of equal amounts of charge, and also constructed as I have just stated will travel in a straight line and at a constant speed. With no angular velocity (no acceleration through the ether) that particle will not exhibit mass. Please see articles “What is a photon?” and the “Origin of Gravity” paper for more detail.

The neutron has zero net charge because it is composed of (not Fundamental) 3 separate but entangled quarks. The UP quark = to 2/3 positive charge the 2 down quarks = -1/3 charge each for a net total charge of zero. The quadropole moments can be manifested because the charges are separated quarks of opposite charge and not coupled. This kind of particle can still generate a gravitational field because the quarks are unbalanced charge moving a high rate of speed. Their motion has angular momentum therefore moving in accelerated fashion. Then by the formula for mass increase they generate a small gravitational field. This is demonstrated in the Origin of Gravity paper.

To Gzhpcu,

I say:
First off, matter and antimatter do not annihilate each other. This is a misleading statement. So I want to clear that up.

The definition for annihilate is:
to destroy something completely, especially so that it ceases to exist

This does not happen when matter and antimatter collide. What happens is E=mc^2 and that is a transformation. Matter turns into energy and that is not annihilation. Nothing disappears or is destroyed. What I described above is precisely what happens. Matter is transformed into energy and that is a very important concept. There is tons of evidence to support that statement. If anyone, anytime, thinks that matter has disappeared. Then, I say that is most likely a systemic error that exists in the experiment. Conservation laws are all upheld in the Theory of Super Relativity.

As for the double slit experiment. The explanation is essentially complete. You just failed to extrapolate from what I was saying. I will expand. Everything is connected to everything else. All the objects in the room have some affect on the flight of each and every photon as it travels and to a much smaller degree all the objects in the Universe have some minute effect. Therefore introducing more equipment and or activating additional equipment to make measurements also has an effect. The items and objects closest to the path of the photon and its effective field will affect the flight the most. If you change or modify the geometry in the flight path this will have the greatest impact.

Fortunately I do not have to explain Quantum Tunneling. That is for Quantum Mechanics to explain.

Spherically symmetric atoms, with a positive charge in the center and a negative charge around it, show induced electric dipole moments.
Why aren't we observing that in photons?


But each of your components is rotating, unless I misunderstood your description with the two half circles. So, how are the two masses giving a zero mass particle?


Of course they are coupled: EM interaction works over macroscopic distances, and the quarks are stuck together in a very small space.


This has nothing to do with my question.

__________________
papageno


"Why waste time learning, when ignorance is instantaneous?" - Hobbes (Calvin and Hobbes)

"It's all about context!" - Vince Noir (The Mighty Boosh)

"I've never heard of such a brutal and shocking injustice that I cared so little about!" - Zapp Brannigan (Futurama)

"...because the logic of the lines traced from reality is as poor of aesthetic value as it is strict in consistency. " - Paolo Bozzi (Naive Physics - free translation)

I beg to differ. Quantum foam is an example: Due to Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle, particle/antiparticle pairs pop up and annihiliate each other before they can be detected.

The geometry in the flight path has not been changed. We have a detector at the slit, that is all.


Certainly you have to explain Quantum Tunneling, and QM has explained it. It is a result of the Schrödinger Wave Equation. How do you account for the effect? Do you know what Quantum Tunneling is?

__________________
______________________________________________
“He who asks a question is a fool for five minutes; he who does not ask a question remains a fool forever”
Chinese proverb
"All you need in this life is ignorance and confidence - and then success is sure." - Mark Twain.

Hello papageno

I Say:
Well let me try again. Saying it another way. Spherically symmetric atoms with a positive charge in the center and negative charge surrounding it are not fundamental objects the charges are separate and in motion so it is possible to detect a dipole structure. Photons on the other hand are coupled structure (a rigid object configuration). The two component parts are not moving relative to each other they are connected or coupled together as they move through space. The two parts move as a single unit. They are back to back. That is why I believe that dipole is not observed.

The components move as one unit in space and the entire unit may seem to an observer to be spinning as a unit passes by and it may very well be, doesn’t matter as long as the entire unit is moving in a straight line and not accelerating. The two charges that make up the photon are not moving about each other and they are not moving relative to each other. I must stress that. You see to me this seems very clear as I have been visualizing for a long time. I understand that other people do not have my images in their mind and sometimes I assume that it is clear and it is not to other people. So I sometimes need to explain things several different ways to ensure that we are seeing the same thing.

In my mind this disagreement is a semantic difference. The quarks to me are not connected in the way I describe the photon above. That is a rigid structure. Quarks on the other hand are still tightly bound but independently moving about each other. These objects are entangled and that to me is different than being coupled. To me coupled means joined together rigidly and I do not believe quarks are joined into a rigid structure.

I am not sure what you are referring to so I am not going to attempt a response for this.